ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

published: 10 October 2013

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00715

A componential view of childrens difficulties in learning

fractions
Florence Gabriel 1,2*, Frdric Coch 3 , Dnes Szucs 1*, Vincent Carette 3 , Bernard Rey 3 and
Alain Content 2
1
Department of Experimental Psychology, Centre for Neuroscience in Education, University of Cambridge, UK
2
Laboratoire Cognition, Langage et Dveloppement, Centre de Recherche Cognition et Neurosciences, Universit Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium
3
Service des Sciences de lEducation, Facult des Sciences Psychologiques et de lEducation, Universit Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Bruxelles, Belgium

Edited by:
Korbinian Moeller, Knowledge
Media Research Center, Germany
Reviewed by:
David Geary, University of Missouri,
USA
Thomas J. Faulkenberry, Tarleton
State University, USA
*Correspondence:
Florence Gabriel and Denes Szucs,
Department of Experimental
Psychology, Centre for
Neuroscience in Education,
University of Cambridge, Trinity Ln,
Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK
e-mail: fcg25@cam.ac.uk;
ds377@cam.ac.uk
Fractions are well known to be difficult to learn. Various hypotheses have been proposed
in order to explain those difficulties: fractions can denote different concepts; their
understanding requires a conceptual reorganization with regard to natural numbers;
and using fractions involves the articulation of conceptual knowledge with complex
manipulation of procedures. In order to encompass the major aspects of knowledge about
fractions, we propose to distinguish between conceptual and procedural knowledge. We
designed a test aimed at assessing the main components of fraction knowledge. The test
was carried out by fourth-, fifth- and sixth-graders from the French Community of Belgium.
The results showed large differences between categories. Pupils seemed to master
the part-whole concept, whereas numbers and operations posed problems. Moreover,
pupils seemed to apply procedures they do not fully understand. Our results offer further
directions to explain why fractions are amongst the most difficult mathematical topics
in primary education. This study offers a number of recommendations on how to teach
fractions.

Keywords: fractions, equivalence, part-whole, proportion, arithmetic operations, fraction subcontructs

INTRODUCTION DIFFERENT OBSTACLES IN LEARNING FRACTION

As the joke goes, three out of two people have trouble with frac-
tions. Fractions have been known from ancient civilizations until
current times, but they still pose major problems when learning
mathematics. Babylonian civilization and Egyptians of 4000 years
ago already worked with fractions. The processing of fractions is
part of our everyday life and is used in situations such as the esti-
mation of rebates, following a recipe or reading a map. Moreover,
fractions play a key role in mathematics, since they are involved
in probabilistic, proportional and algebraic reasoning. Then why
is it so hard for pupils to learn and represent fractions? Fractions
have been used for centuries and are manipulated in a great vari-
ety of everyday life situations and in mathematics, and yet they are
hard for students to grasp and master. In this article, we will try
to shed light on childrens difficulties when they learn fractions.
Fractions are well-known to constitute a stumbling block for
primary school children (Behr et al., 1983; Moss and Case, 1999;
Grgoire and Meert, 2005; Charalambous and Pitta-Pantazi,
2007). Understanding difficulties in learning fractions seems
absolutely crucial as they can lead to mathematics anxiety, and
affect opportunities for further engagement in mathematics and
science. Various hypotheses have been proposed in order to
explain those difficulties. In this research, we used a theoretical
framework based on psychological and educational theories to
define problems encountered by pupils when they learn fractions.
We tested 4th , 5th , and 6th -graders in order to identify childrens
difficulties more precisely.
Whole number bias
Fractions are rational numbers. A rational number can be defined
as a number expressed by the quotient a/b of integers, where
the denominator, b, is non-zero. According to a recent theory of
numerical development, children who have not yet learned frac-
tions generally believe that the properties of whole numbers are
the same for all numbers (Siegler et al., 2011). Indeed, one of the
main difficulties when learning fractions comes from the use of
natural number properties to make inferences on rational num-
bers, what Ni and Zhou (2005) called the whole numbers bias.
This bias leads to difficulties conceptualizing whole numbers as
decomposable units.
From a mathematical viewpoint, there are fundamental dif-
ferences between those two types of numbers. Firstly, rational
numbers are a densely ordered set, whereas whole numbers form
a discrete set. Between two rational numbers, there is an infinity
of other rational numbers, while between two natural numbers,
there is no other natural number (Vamvakoussi and Vosniadou,
2004). Secondly, another feature of rational numbers is the possi-
bility to write them from an infinity of fractions. This corresponds
to the notion of equivalent fractions. Thirdly, faction symbols
are a/b types. Pupils often process numerator and denominator
as two separate whole numbers (Pitkethly and Hunting, 1996).
They apply procedures that can only be used with whole numbers
(Nunes and Bryant, 1996). Consequently, typical errors appear in
addition or subtraction tasks (e.g., 1/4 + 1/2 = 2/6), and also in

www.frontiersin.org October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 1

Gabriel et al.
fraction comparison (e.g., 1/5 >1/3). In this case, pupils reason-
ing can be resumed as follows: if the number is larger, then the
magnitude it represents is larger. But when we think about frac-
tions, a larger denominator does not mean a larger magnitude,
but a smaller one. Another difficulty appears in multiplication
tasks. Multiplying natural numbers always lead to a larger answer,
but it is not the case with fractions (e.g., 8 1/4 = 2).
The inappropriate generalization of the knowledge about nat-
ural numbers is even more resistant as it is widely anterior to the
one about rational numbers (Vamvakoussi and Vosniadou, 2004).
In order to overcome these mistakes, it would seem necessary
for students to perform a conceptual reorganisation which inte-
grates rational numbers as a new category of numbers, with their
own rules and functioning (Stafylidou and Vosniadou, 2004).
Furthermore, even in adults, knowledge about natural numbers
is often preponderant when processing fractions (Bonato et al.,
2007; Kallai and Tzelgov, 2009).
Different meanings of fractions
Another major difficulty comes from the multifaceted notion
of fractions (Kieren, 1993; Brousseau et al., 2004; Grgoire and
Meert, 2005). Kieren (1976) was the first to separate fractions into
four interrelated categories: ratio; operator; quotient; and mea-
sure. The ratio category expresses the notion of a comparison
between two quantities, for example when there are three boys
for every four girls in a group. So in this case, the ratio of boys to
girls is 3:4; the boys representing 3/7 of the group and the girls 4/7
of the group. In the operator category, fractions are considered as
functions applied to objects, numbers or sets (Behr et al., 1983).
The fraction operator can enlarge or shrink a quantity to a new
value. For example, finding 3/4 of a number can be a function
where the operation is multiply by 3 divided by 4, or divided by 4
and then multiply by 3. The quotient category refers to the result
of a division. For example, the fraction 3/4 may be considered as
a quotient, 3/4. In the measure category, fractions are associated
with two interrelated notions. Firstly, they are considered as num-
bers, which convey how big the fractions are. Secondly, they are
associated with the measure of an interval. According to Kieren
(1976), the part-whole notion of fractions is implicated in these
four categories. That is the reason why he did not describe it as a
fifth category.
Thereafter, Behr et al. (1983) proposed a theoretical model
linking the different categories of fractions. They recommend
considering part-whole as an additional category. They also asso-
ciated partitioning to the part-whole notion. The part-whole
category can then be defined as a situation in which a continu-
ous quantity is partitioned into equal size (e.g., dividing a cake
into equal parts), and partitioning would be the same with a set
of discrete objects (e.g., distributing the same amount of sweets
among a group of children).
Other models have been proposed to describe the multiple
meanings of fractions (Brissiaud, 1998; Rouche, 1998; Mamede
et al., 2005). These models partly overlap, but are not entirely
equivalent. For instance, Mamede et al. (2005) present four types
of fraction use: quantifying a part-whole relationship, quanti-
fying a quotient, representing an operator, representing a rela-
tion between quantities. Meanwhile Grgoire (2008) suggests a
Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology
Difficulties in learning fractions
different model, in which three categories correspond to three
acquisition stages. In the first stage, the fraction is seen as an oper-
ator. This notion refers to sharing situations. The second one is
the ratio stage which requires a high level of abstraction because
one needs to understand that different fractions can represent
the same ratio. This is linked to the notion of equivalent frac-
tions. The third and last stage is related to the numerical meaning
of fractions. Fractions are here conceived as a new category of
numbers, with their own rules and properties.
Conceptual and procedural understanding
Another explanation of childrens difficulties when learning frac-
tions lies in the articulation between conceptual and procedural
knowledge. Previous studies have shown that children would
often perform calculations without knowing why (Kerslake,
1986).
Conceptual knowledge can be defined as the explicit or
implicit understanding of the principles ruling a domain and
the interrelations between the different parts of knowledge in a
domain (Rittle-Johnson and Alibali, 1999). It can also be con-
sidered as the knowledge of central concepts and principles, and
their interrelations in a particular domain (Schneider and Stern,
2005). Conceptual knowledge is thought to be mentally stored in
a form of relational representations, such as semantic networks
(Hiebert, 1986). It is not tied to a specific problem, but can be
generalized to a class of problems (Hiebert, 1986; Schneider and
Stern, 2010).
Procedural knowledge can be defined as sequences of actions
that are useful to solve problems (Rittle-Johnson and Alibali,
1999). Some authors consider procedural knowledge as the
knowledge of symbolic representations, algorithms, and rules
(Byrnes and Wasik, 1991). Moreover, procedural knowledge
would allow people to solve problems in a quick and effective
way as it can easily be automatized (Schneider and Stern, 2010).
Therefore, it can be used with few cognitive resources (Schneider
and Stern, 2010). However, procedural knowledge is not as flex-
ible as conceptual knowledge and is often bound to specific
problem types (Baroody, 2003).
Those two types of knowledge may not evolve in independent
ways. Many theories on knowledge acquisition suggest that the
generation of procedures is based on conceptual understanding
(Halford, 1993; Gelman and Williams, 1997). They argue that
children use their conceptual understanding to develop their dis-
covery procedures and adapt acquired procedures to new tasks.
According to this approach, childrens difficulties when learning
about fractions could be interpreted as a use of mathematical
symbols without access to their meaning. Procedural knowledge
may also influence conceptual understanding. Using procedures
would lead to a better conceptual understanding. But few stud-
ies support this idea. For instance, Byrnes and Wasik (1991)
argue that many children learn the right procedures to multiply
fractions, but they never seem to understand the underlying prin-
ciples. Other authors support a third point of view. Both types
of knowledge might progress in an iterative and interactive way
(Rittle-Johnson et al., 2001). Conceptual and procedural knowl-
edge might continually and incrementally stimulate each other.
Neither would necessarily precede the other.
October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 2
Gabriel et al.
In mathematics education, teachers seem to focus more on
procedural than conceptual knowledge. Children usually learn
rote procedures in a repetitive way. This leads to a misunder-
standing of mathematical symbols (Byrnes and Wasik, 1991).
Consequently many computational errors are due to an impov-
erished conceptual understanding.
OUR THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Taking into account the different theoretical models presented
and the issues they arise led us to build our own conceptual
framework. In this study exploring the difficulties in learning
fractions, two main components were considered: a conceptual
component and a procedural component.
The conceptual component was divided in four distinct
aspects: proportion, number, measure and part-whole/partition.
Part-whole/partition refers to how much of an object (e.g., 1/2
pizza) or a collection (e.g., 1/2 of a bag of sweets) is represented
by the fraction symbol (Hecht et al., 2003; Kieren, 1988). Typical
tasks used to assess that kind of conceptual knowledge involve
shading parts of a figure indicated by a fraction, or the oppo-
site exercise consisting of writing the fraction representing the
quantity of a figure that is shaded (Hiebert and Lefevre, 1986;
Byrnes and Wasik, 1991; Ni, 2001). Proportion represents the
comparison between two quantities. We used comparison of dif-
ferent expressions of the same ratio (e.g., 1/2, 2/4, and 3/?) as it is
an adequate way to assess the understanding of proportion. The
numerical meaning of fraction refers to the fact that fractions rep-
resent rational numbers that can be ordered on a number line
(Kieren, 1988). Two relevant tasks were used to assess childrens
understanding of the numerical meaning of fractions: firstly,
number lines on which they are asked to place a fraction, and sec-
ondly, indicating which of several given fractions represents the
largest quantity (Byrnes and Wasik, 1991; Ni, 2000).
Several variables also held our attention regarding the repre-
sentation of fractions. Discrete and continuous quantities were
used. Children might have greater difficulties to link 2/4 to 2 out
4 for elements of a set than 2/4 of a pie (Ni, 2001). Multiple
objects and figures, as well as numerical symbols were introduced
to assess the possible interference of certain types of representa-
tions (Coquin-Viennot and Camos, 2006). For practical reasons,
we did not examine fractions as a measure in this study. This cat-
egory is closely related to the metric system. The manipulation of
fractions as a measure can be made by splitting units of length,
area, volume, time, mass, etc. Understanding these measuring sit-
uations involves several concepts that are not exclusively related to
fractions, such as understanding different unit systems or a good
grasp of the decimal position system. Therefore, it is difficult to
assess the understanding of this category in isolation from these
variables.
Procedural items were those that could be easily solved by
applying a procedure that could be implemented without check-
ing for meaning outside that particular procedure. The procedu-
ral component involved various operations on fractions, namely
the addition and subtraction with or without common denom-
inators, multiplication, and simplification of fractions. Children
were given different arithmetical operations to solve as well as
simplification exercises.
www.frontiersin.org
Difficulties in learning fractions
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The main aim of this study was to provide empirical data that
could explain difficulties encountered by children when they learn
fractions. Our first objective was to analyse the mathematics
curriculum of the French Community of Belgium, where this
study was conducted. Our second objective was to understand the
nature of pupils difficulties through different categories.
We addressed several research questions regarding childrens
difficulties when learning fraction. First, we wanted to define
more precisely the difficulties encountered by primary school
children. Second, one of the goals of this study was to clarify
the relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge
of fractions. Does conceptual knowledge of fractions influence
procedural knowledge? Or is procedural knowledge sufficient to
understand fractions? Our hypothesis is that childrens difficulties
come from a lack of conceptual understanding of fractions. Their
errors would come from the application of routine procedures,
but they do not understand the various underlying concepts.
Conceptual knowledge of fractions was assessed through tests
about the different meanings of fractions (part-whole, propor-
tion, number), and the different representations of fractions (e.g.,
association between figural, numeral, and verbal representations).
Procedural knowledge about fractions was evaluated through
operations on fractions and simplification tasks.
METHODS
PARTICIPANTS
The test was administered to eight Grade 4 classes (mean age: 9
years 11 months old), eight Grade 5 (mean age: 11 years 1 month
old) classes and eight Grade 6 classes (mean age: 12 years old)
from five different schools, representing a total sample of 439 par-
ticipants (214 girls and 225 boys). The choice of these grades was
deliberate, as fraction learning usually starts from Grade 4 in the
French Community of Belgium where the study was conducted.
Informed consent was obtained from parents and the director
of every school, as well as from the 24 teachers involved in this
research. Assent from children was obtained at the onset of both
testing sessions.
THE SETTING OF THE STUDY
We analyzed 21 mathematics textbooks recognized by the
Education Department of the French Community of Belgium.
Fraction concepts used in mathematics textbooks in Grade 46
were listed. The goal was to analyse the progression of fraction
learning proposed by those textbooks. The most striking obser-
vation was that there was a great variety of ways to introduce
fractions. In most textbooks, the part-whole concept was consid-
ered as the starting point, but in some cases, the measure concept
was introduced first. Every concept described in our theoretical
framework was represented in the textbooks, but the number of
exercises concerning each one of them varied greatly.
We also examined the official mathematics program of the
French Community of Belgium. The program presents, in a
structured way, the basic skills for the first 8 years of compul-
sory education, and the skills pupils have to master by the end
of each stage (Ministre de la Communaut franaise, 1999).
Fractions were divided into two different categories, Numbers
October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 3
Gabriel et al.
and Quantities. Any requirement at the end of primary school
(Grade 6) is briefly reviewed in this section. In the Number
category, pupils should be able count, enumerate and clas-
sify fractions as well as decimal numbers. They should also be
able to calculate, identify and solve operations involving frac-
tions and decimal numbers. In the Quantities category, children
are supposed to operate and fractionate different quantities in
order to compare them. They should be able to add up and
subtract two fractions as well as calculating percentages. The
program also mentioned their ability to solve proportionality
problems.
The official program offers a list of what pupils should
know about fractions in primary school. But what did not
appear clearly was a logical progression between all the meanings
of fractions. For example, how and when should equiva-
lent fractions be introduced? There was not a clear devel-
opment for teaching fraction. This situation may be risky
as teachers might present fractions as a succession of dif-
ferent independent activities with no real underlying logical
progression.
In order to complete the information found in the textbooks,
we analyzed pedagogical practices about the way teachers intro-
duce and teach fractions. This investigation revealed the great
variety of ways to teach fractions. Our analysis was based on dif-
ferent sources. Firstly, we asked the 24 teachers involved in this
study to give us a list of all the activities about fractions conducted
in their classrooms. Secondly, teachers gave us a sample of their
lessons on fractions as well as pupils notebooks. Thirdly, we made
informal observations during the tests.
In Grade 4, pupils learn how to read and represent the value
of a fraction. They start placing fractions on a graduated number
line. They learn how to simplify fractions (i.e., introduction to
equivalent fractions). They learn how to add and subtract of frac-
tions with small and common denominators. In Grade 5, children
learn more about fractions as numbers and how they represent
quantities. Pupils are trained to convert fractions into decimal
numbers and vice versa. They use addition and subtraction of
fractions with different denominators. Improper fractions are
introduced. In Grade 6, multiplication of fractions is introduced.
Our analysis highlighted the fact that teachers are more
inclined to use procedures than what is recommended by the
official program. The different conceptual meanings are pre-
sented successively without any logical progression. The order in
which they are introduced depends on the teacher and on the
textbook used by the teacher. Furthermore, fractions seem iso-
lated from mathematics lessons and are taught like a separate
topic.
TEST
A test was designed to answer our research questions. Its con-
struction has been guided by our theoretical framework as well
as the primary school curriculum in the French Community of
Belgium. The test was split into two parts. Part A was made of 19
questions, Part B of 20 questions. There were 1 to 8 items for each
question. There were 46 items in Part A and 48 in Part B. Part
B was administered one week after Part A. Pupils had 50 min to
answer each part.
Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology
Difficulties in learning fractions
Conceptual knowledge assessment
Conceptual knowledge of fractions was assessed through different
categories of questions: part of a whole/partition, proportion and
number. Three types of representations have been used: symbolic
(e.g., 1/4), verbal (e.g., one-quarter) and figural representations
(e.g., a square where the colored part represented 1/4). Discrete
and continuous quantities were used.
Multiple variables were taken into account regarding numeri-
cal and verbal representations, such as the degree of familiarity, or
the parity of the denominator and the numerator. The following
variables were controlled regarding figural representations: the
equivalence of the parts; the shape of the figure (square, rectan-
gle, triangle . . .); the size of the figure; and the contiguity of the
colored parts of the figure.
Part-whole/partition. Part-whole assessment included items for
which children had to link fractions to a figural representation.
The first question consisted of 6 items for which children were
asked to represent a given fraction with a figure (e.g., draw a fig-
ure representing 1/7). The items were familiar fractions (1/2 and
3/4), unfamiliar fractions (1/7 and 4/5) and improper fractions
(i.e., fractions larger than 1; 3/2 and 7/5). In the second question,
pupils were asked to choose a figure representing a given fraction
(e.g., choose figures representing 1/4, see Appendix). In the third
question, they were asked to shade a certain portion of a figure.
There were four items for this question. In the first two items,
children were asked to shade 3/4 of a square or a rectangle. In the
next two items, they were asked to shade 4/5 of a pentagon or a
square.
Proportion. For questions about proportion, children were asked
to compare quantities based on the rule of three. Five quantities
were given in a table and they had to give the sixth quantity. There
were verbal representations, such as 3 cakes cost C6, 5 cakes cost
C10, 7 cakes cost C? There were also figural representations. An
example of figural representation is given in Figure 1. The contex-
tualization of the items was introduced to make sure that children
based their answer on both columns of the tables.
FIGURE 1 | Example of a figural proportion item.
October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 4
Gabriel et al. Difficulties in learning fractions

Numbers. For the number category, there were four types of
questions. The first question was a comparison of fractions.
Pupils had to decide which of two fractions represented the larger
quantity. There were fractions with the same numerator (e.g.,
2/3_2/7), fractions with the same denominator (e.g., 3/8_5/8)
and fractions with no common components (e.g., 2/5_1/4). In
the second question, pupils were asked put fractions in ascend-
ing order. This question also involved improper fractions and
natural numbers. The given numbers were the following: 3/4,
1/2, 8/4, and 1. The third question involved finding a fraction
between two given fractions (e.g., find a fraction between 2/7 and
5/7). Fractions with common denominators, common numera-
tors, and no common components were included. For the fourth
question, pupils were asked to place a fraction or the unit on a
graduated number line (e.g., given 0 and 1/4, place 3/4 on the
number line). The given references were always 0 and another
fraction.
Procedural knowledge assessment
We assessed the following procedures: addition and subtraction
with or without the same denominator; multiplication of frac-
tions; multiplication of a fraction by an integer; and simplification
of fractions. Those procedures were assessed with typical ques-
tions such as 1/2 + 1/4 = ?. Division of fractions was not included
as it is not part of the official curriculum.
RESULTS
GENERAL RESULTS
Descriptive statistics are reported for each category of fractions
(part-whole, proportion, numbers, operations, and simplifica-
tion). Mean scores and standard deviations are always expressed
in percentage. As can be seen in Table 1, children performed
better for questions about proportion and part-whole than for
questions about the other categories. There were still major dif-
ficulties in Grade 6 for the part-whole category. Indeed, even in
Table 1 | Mean percentage of correct responses and standard
deviation for each category in Grade 46.
Part-whole Proportion Number Operations Simplification
Grade 4 65 16 69 28 47 19 22 18 26 6
Grade 5 72 13 78 26 52 18 37 28 61 9
Grade 6 77 15 85 22 63 20 53 27 71 10
Grade 6, the percentage of correct responses was still far from
ceiling performance. Children were capable of resolving questions
on proportional reasoning from Grade 4. The main observed
errors were linked to additive reasoning. Children got the lower
scores in Grade 4 for arithmetic operations. This was not sur-
prising as learning about operations on fractions usually start in
Grade 5.
A correlation analysis was run to assess the relations between
conceptual (part of a whole, proportion and numbers) and
procedural categories (operations and simplification). The cor-
relation analysis revealed that conceptual categories correlated
significantly with each other (see Table 2). They also correlated
positively with procedural categories.
We ran an ANOVA for repeated measures with category as
a within-subjects factor (part-whole; proportion; number; oper-
ations; simplification) and grade as a between-subjects factor.
There was a significant grade effect, F(2, 437) = 71.53, p < 0.001,
2p = 0.25. There was also a main effect of category, F(4, 1744) =
242.64, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.36, and a significant grade x cate-
gory interaction, F(8, 1744) = 19.85, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.08 (see
Figure 2A). Tukey post-hoc tests showed that accuracy for oper-
ations and simplification was poorer in Grade 4 than in Grades
5 and 6 (p < 0.001).
We ran another ANOVA for repeated measures on the type
of knowledge (conceptual and procedural) with grade as a
between-subjects factor. There was a significant effect of grade,
F(2, 437) = 75.23, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.26. There was also a signifi-
cant effect of the type of knowledge, F(1, 438) = 459.5, p < 0.001,
2p = 0.51, and a significant grade x type of knowledge inter-
action, F(2, 437) = 242.64, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.36 (see Figure 2B).
Tukey post-hoc test was used to determine significant differences
between grade mean values for each type of knowledge, revealing
that performance was poorer for procedural knowledge in Grade
4 than in Grades 5 and 6 (p < 0.001).
We also ran cluster analyses to ensure that our categories
reflected conceptual and procedural knowledge. Since two pat-
terns appeared in the results, we ran two separate cluster analyses:
one analysis for Grade 4 and one analysis for Grades 5 and 6.
We ran neighbor-joining analyses (single linkage method) to see
if our categories formed natural clusters that could be labeled
according to a type of knowledge. These analyses provide a tree-
structured graph (i.e., dendrogram) that is used to visualize the
results of hierarchical clustering calculations. The dendrogram
indicates at what level of similarity any two clusters were joined.
It was constructed using neighbor-joining algorithm based on

Table 2 | Correlations between conceptual items and procedural items.

Part-whole Proportion Number Operations Simplification

Part-whole 1
Proportion 0.348** 1
Numbers 0.382** 0.359** 1
Operations 0.383** 0.307** 0.460** 1
Simplification 0.305** 0.386** 0.281** 0.387** 1

**Significant at p < 0.01.

www.frontiersin.org October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 5

Gabriel et al. Difficulties in learning fractions

FIGURE 2 | The top two panels show the interaction between grade and The bottom two panels show dendrograms depicting the results of a single
correct response rates for each category (A), and between grade and linkage hierarchical clustering of each category based on Euclidian distances
each type of knowledge (B). Vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals. for Grade 4 (C) and Grades 5 and 6 (D).

Euclidian distances. Both for Grade 4 and for Grades 5 and 6, Table 3 | Mean percentage and standard deviation for the question:
the dendrograms clustered the categories into two distinct groups Draw a representation of the given fraction.
that correspond to our two types of knowledge, i.e., concep-
Items Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
tual and procedural (see Figures 2C,D). Part-whole, number and
proportion were the most similar and correspond to our con- 1/2 84 4 95 14 98 10
ceptual categories, whereas operations and simplification can be 1/7 67 7 83 5 89 2
combined in a different cluster, that is our procedural categories. 3/4 75 8 87 4 89 3
4/5 67 5 77 3 90 3
PART-WHOLE/PARTITION 7/5 14 7 20 9 35 9
Draw a representation for each given fraction 3/2 23 7 23 11 41 10
Table 3 shows mean scores and standard deviation for the first
question related to the part- whole/partition meaning of frac-
tions. Different variables were involved in this question. Firstly, an Grade 6. There was a significant difference between continuous
ANOVA with the type of fraction as within-subject factor (2 lev- and discrete quantities, F(1, 438) = 2308.1, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.91.
els: proper fraction vs. improper fraction) was run. Performance Performance was better for continuous quantities.
was worse for improper fractions than for proper fractions,
F(1, 438) = 2039.2, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.90. Secondly, familiar (1/2, Shade a certain fraction of a figure
3/4) and unfamiliar fractions (1/7, 4/5) were compared in another In this task, pupils had to shade 3/4 or 4/5 of a given figure.
ANOVA. Performance for familiar fractions was significantly bet- Mean scores per grade are given in Table 4. Mean scores for 3/4
ter than for unfamiliar fractions, F(1, 438) = 2406.9, p < 0.001, (Mean = 83 2%) were higher than for 4/5 (Mean = 65 4%).
2p = 0.92. An ANOVA with familiarity as a within-subject factor showed
Despite potential graphic difficulties, pupils mostly divided a a significant difference between 3/4 and 4/5, F(1, 438) = 3156.6,
common continuous shape (circle or square, see Figure 3). 90% p < 0.001, 2p = 0.93.
of pupils represented continuous quantities.
PROPORTION
Select the figures representing 1/4 As seen in Table 1, performance for proportion items was bet-
In this task, pupils had to choose figures representing the quan- ter than in other categories. However, 10% of the answers given
tity 1/4 (see Appendix). Mean percentage of correct responses by 4th -graders were based on additive reasoning. This percentage
were high in every grade (Mean = 92% 6%). But when figures dropped to 5% in Grade 5 and 2.6% in Grade 6. This type of error
were representing 2/8, we observed a dramatic drop of perfor- was more present for numerical items (Grade 4 = 9%; Grade 5 =
mance: 24 6% in Grade 4, 29 8% in Grade 5 and 59 9% in 7%; Grade 6 = 3%) than for figural items (Grade 4 = 2%; Grade

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 6

Gabriel et al. Difficulties in learning fractions

5 = 2%; Grade 6 = 1%). A single-factor ANOVA was run and
showed no significant difference between numerical and figural
items, F(1, 438) = 0.6, p = 0.8.
NUMBER
Place a given fraction on a number line
Percentage of correct responses showed a clear difference between
three groups of items. In the first group of items, there were 3
number lines for which pupils only had to count the number of
graduations corresponding to numerators to succeed (e.g., know-
ing 0 and 5/9 on the fifth graduation, place 2/9). For these items,
they could only process the numerator and ignore the denomi-
nator. Mean percentage of correct responses for these items was
89 6%. In the second group of items, there were two number
lines on which pupils had to place 1 (e.g., knowing 0 and 1/5 on
the first graduation, place 1). The mean score for this group of
items was the following: Mean = 40 22%. The third group of
items involved equivalent fractions (e.g., knowing 0 and 1/6 on
the second graduation, place 2/3). The mean score for these items
was the following: Mean = 31 24%. An ANOVA with the group
of items as a within-subject factor showed a significant differ-
ence between the first group of items compared to unit items and
items involving equivalent fractions, F(2, 437) = 2942.6, p < 0.
001, 2p = 0.95. Tukey post-hoc tests showed that the first group
of items was higher than unit items (p < 0.001) and equivalent
fractions items (p < 0.001).
Error analysis showed that when asked to place 1 on a number
line, pupils had a tendency to place it at the beginning (12% of
given responses) or at the end of the line (43% of given responses).

Put these fractions in ascending order

Children were asked to sort the following numbers in ascending
order: 3/4, 1/2, 8/4, and 1. 55% of 4th-graders placed 1 at the end
of the sequence, after 8/4. Furthermore, 22% of 4-graders placed
1 at the beginning of the sequence, before 1/2 and 3/4. This error
rate decreased in grades 5 and 6, but 30% of 6th-graders still put
1 at the end of the sequence. These errors are consistent with the
errors observed in the number line task. Children struggled with
the relation between fractions and the unit.

FIGURE 3 | Illustration of the most common answer when pupils
were asked to draw a representation of a given fraction. 90% of
them drew continuous quantities such as a circle or a rectangle. In this
particular example, only 1/2 was represented correctly (A). Parts of the
drawings were unequal for 1/7 and 2/6 (B and C). Different shapes were
used for 3/2 (D).
Table 4 | Mean scores and standard deviation for each item in which
pupils had to shade 3/4 or 4/5 of a given figure.
Comparison of fractions
Pupils had to choose which of two fractions was larger. There
were three types of items: same denominators (Mean = 83
2%); same numerators (Mean = 56 2%); and no common
components (Mean = 65 2%). An ANOVA on the type of
fraction (3 levels: same denominators; same numerators; and no
common components) revealed significant differences between
types, F(2, 437) = 1346.4, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.90. Tukey post-hoc
tests showed that scores for fractions with common denomi-
nators were higher than for fractions with common numera-
tors (p < 0.001) and fractions with no common components
(p < 0.001).

Figure Fraction Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 OPERATIONS

Performance for addition and subtraction with same denomina-
3/4 89 2 88 2 92 1 tors was better than for addition and subtraction with different
3/4 58 5 82 2 86 1 denominators (see Table 5). This is not surprising as addition
4/5 66 4 62 5 86 2 and subtraction with different denominators are not yet part of
4/5 55 5 53 5 69 2 the program in Grade 4. But the procedure to find the lowest

Table 5 | Mean percentage of correct responses and standard deviation for each type of operations in Grade 46.

Addition and subtraction/ Addition and subtraction/ Multiplication: fraction Multiplication: fraction
same denominators different denominators integer fraction

Grade 4 37 9 11 18 7 39 6
Grade 5 51 7 25 8 28 5 36 5
Grade 6 72 7 33 9 43 5 54 4

www.frontiersin.org October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 7

Gabriel et al.
common denominator seems to pose problems in Grade 5 and 6.
The most common error was based on the natural number bias,
that is, adding or subtracting numerators and denominators as
if there were natural numbers (e.g., = 1/3 + 1/4 = 2/7). 62% of
4th-graders made this mistake for addition and subtraction with
different denominators, and this percentage still reached 22% in
Grade 6. Surprisingly, performance for multiplication of fractions
was better in Grade 4 than in Grade 5. An ANOVA showed sig-
nificant differences on the types of operations, F(2, 437) = 135.5,
p < 0.001, 2p = 0.45. Tukey post-hoc tests showed that perfor-
mance was better for addition and subtraction with common
denominators than for addition and subtraction with different
denominators and multiplication (p < 0.001).
SIMPLIFICATION
As can be seen in Table 6, performance in the simplification
task was better for fractions that could be divided by 2 (e.g.,
4/8) than for fractions that could be divided by 3 (e.g., 15/9),
F(1, 438) = 384.4, p < 0.001, 2p = 0.64. There was no signifi-
cant difference between simplification of proper and improper
fractions, fractions, F(1, 438) = 1.76, p = 0.19.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we investigated the difficulties encountered by pri-
mary school children when learning fractions. One of the main
goals of this study was to clarify the relationships between con-
ceptual and procedural understanding of fractions. In order to do
so, a test was administered in Grade 46 in classes of the French
Community of Belgium. The test was based on the different
conceptual meanings of fractions, namely part-whole/partition,
number, proportion, as well as on procedural questions involving
arithmetical operations and simplification of fractions.
Globally, the results showed large differences between cate-
gories. Pupils seemed to master the part-whole concept, whereas
numbers and operations posed tremendous problems. Some con-
ceptual meanings, such as numbers, were less used in primary
school classes. Part-whole seems to be a concept that is widely
used in the classrooms. Indeed, children performed well in the
part-whole/partition category. However, they seem to have a
stereotypic representation of fractions. Indeed, when they were
asked to represent a given fraction, they mostly used a circle or
a square, even when drawing collections could have been easier
(e.g., 1/7). Moreover, when asked to select a figure representing a
certain fraction, they performed better for continuous than dis-
crete quantities. Pupils performed well with proportion items.
These results contrast with textbooks and lessons given by teach-
ers. In fact, the connection between proportions and fractions is
Table 6 | Mean percentage of correct responses and standard
deviation for the simplification task in each grade.
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
4/10 36 8 72 11 78 10
9/12 20 6 54 9 62 11
15/9 19 6 56 9 71 11
16/4 30 6 63 10 74 9
Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology
Difficulties in learning fractions
rarely made in textbooks and formal lessons, even if some aspects
of fractions are based upon proportional reasoning (e.g., the rule
of three).
In the proportion category, most errors were linked to addi-
tive reasoning. For example, when pupils are asked questions such
as 3 cakes cost C12, 6 cakes cost C24, 8 cakes cost C? the
most common error would be the answer C36. In this case, chil-
dren built their answer on only a subset of the given information
and they applied additive strategies where multiplicative strategies
should be used. Mistakes linked to additive reasoning are com-
monly reported during early stages of childrens understanding of
proportional reasoning (Lesh et al., 1988). This kind of mistakes
was common in Grade 4, but could still be observed in Grade 6.
Pupils performed poorly in the numerical category. Even if
children are trained to deal with number lines from grade 4,
results showed major difficulties when they were asked to place
a fraction on a graduated number line. They do not seem to
have an appropriate representation of the quantities of fractions.
Other studies have reported that many pupils experience diffi-
culties when asked to locate a fraction on a number line. Pupils
often view the whole number line, irrespective of its magnitude
as a single unit instead of a scale (Ni, 2001). When they are asked
to place a fraction between 0 and 1, pupils often place fractions
disregarding any other reference point or known fractions. Pearn
and Stephens (2004) pointed out that the incorrect location of
fractions could also be the consequence of a lack of accuracy when
dividing segments.
The lack of accuracy in childrens mental representations of the
magnitude of fractions seems to be confirmed by the weak per-
centage of correct response for questions involving sorting out a
range of fractions in ascending order. Furthermore, mean per-
centage of correct responses for comparison of fractions were
very low for fractions with common numerators and fractions no
common components. When fractions share the same denomina-
tor (e.g., 2/5_4/5), the global magnitude of fractions is congruent
with the magnitude of the numerators (e.g., 4 is larger than 2). In
this case, pupils could only compare the numerators in order to
choose the larger fraction. When fractions share the same numer-
ator, the global magnitude of fractions is incongruent with the
magnitude of denominators. Thus, pupils might not take the
incongruity into account and their judgment might have been
influenced by the whole number bias (Ni and Zhou, 2005). For
fractions with no common components, pupils probably only
compared numerators and denominators separately. This strategy
led to larger error rates.
Focusing now on operations, children performed well in addi-
tion and subtraction of fractions with the same denominator,
while performance dropped dramatically in addition and subtrac-
tion of fractions with different denominators. The most common
errors were dictated by the whole number bias (Ni and Zhou,
2005). For example, when asked 3/4 + 2/5 = ?, the majority of
pupils answers 5/9. Surprisingly, results were poorer for items
involving the multiplication of an integer by a fraction, than
for multiplication of two fractions. In the last case, pupils could
successfully apply procedures based on natural numbers knowl-
edge, which would explain higher percentage of correct response.
Another surprising result was the better performance in Grade 4
October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 8
Gabriel et al.
than Grade 5 when children were asked to multiply an integer by
a fraction. There might be a contamination of procedures applied
to addition and subtraction with different denominators learnt in
Grade 5.
Results showed massive familiarity effects in every category.
Children performed significantly better on questions including
familiar fractions, such as 1/2, 1/4, or 3/4 than on items with less
familiar fractions. This could be due to the fact that the magni-
tude of 1/2 is known better than other fractional magnitudes. We
do not know precisely when children start to quantify continuous
quantities in informal contexts. Bryant (1974) suggests that chil-
dren are able to understand part/part relations before part/whole
relations. Relations such as larger than/smaller than and equals
to could be the first logical relationships used at the beginning
of fraction learning. Spinillo and Bryant (1991) designed experi-
ments to analyse how 4- to 7-year-olds use the concept of half
in equivalence judgment tasks. Their results suggest that using the
concept of half would be the first step in relationships used by
children to quantify fractions.
Desli (1999) also investigated the role of half by examining
part/whole relationships. 6- to 8-year-olds were told that two
parties had been organized and that chocolate bars would be
equally distributed among children. They had to judge if they
would receive the same amount of chocolate bars in both par-
ties, and if not, in which party they would get more chocolate
bars. Children had ceiling performance when they could use half
as a reference. In the condition where they could not use half
as a reference, only 8-year-olds had performance above chance.
Desli (1999) also showed the importance of the concept of half
in the construction of fractions quantifications. In a recent study
using a fraction-based judgment task, Mazzocco et al. (2013)
showed that fractions equivalent to 1/2 were easier to conceptu-
alize. Moreover, children as young as 3 and 4 years old already
have a good representation of the half boundary (Singer-Freeman
and Goswami, 2001). As children are frequently exposed to 1/2
quite early in life, the familiarity of that quantity might induce
a different type of mental representations compared to other less
familiar fractions. Pupils might benefit from lessons including a
larger pool of fractions. Teaching programs mostly insist on quan-
tities that can be divided by 2. This limited vision of fractions
seems to generate difficulties when it comes to generalization.
Teachers could diversify the number of fractions used during
lessons.
Improper fractions represented another major difficulty for
primary school children (Bright et al., 1988; Tzur, 1999). The
main difficulty appeared in the test when pupils were asked to
graphically represent an improper fraction or when an improper
fraction was presented in an ordering task. When pupils were
asked to order 1 in a sequence involving fractions, the most com-
mon error was to put it at the end of the sequence, even if there
was an improper fraction. This could mean that some children
cannot imagine fractions can be larger than 1. This is consistent
with the results found by Kallai and Tzelgov (2009) who showed
that adults have a mental representation of what they called a
generalized fraction. A generalized fraction corresponds to an
entity smaller than one emerging from the common notation
of fraction (Kallai and Tzelgov, 2009).
www.frontiersin.org
Difficulties in learning fractions
Furthermore, children seem to have a limited conception of
the relation between 1 and fractions. Looking at questions on
number lines and the ordering task, we observed two different
conceptions regarding the number 1. In the first case, 1 was put
at the beginning of the sequence. This can be interpreted as 1
being at the beginning of counting sequence. This error is again
linked to the whole number bias (Ni and Zhou, 2005). Indeed,
pupils based their answer on prior knowledge and the expectation
that fractions follow the same rule of counting as whole num-
bers. In the second case, 1 was placed at the end of the sequence.
Children who made this mistake considered fractions as being
entities smaller than one.
Equivalent fractions were not understood by the majority of
children (Kamii and Clark, 1995; Arnon et al., 2001). For exam-
ple, performance was poor when they were asked to place 2/3
on a number line when the references were 0 and 1/6. Yet, their
score was high for questions involving simplification of fraction.
There was a clear dissociation between conceptual and procedu-
ral understanding. Children mastered the procedure applied to
simplify fractions, but did not seem to understand the underlying
concept of equivalent fractions.
To sum up, the test that we designed revealed many weak-
nesses in understanding fractions in primary school. Teaching
practice seems to focus more on procedures than on conceptual
understanding of fractions. But our results showed that proce-
dures are not sufficient to carry out operations with fractions for
instance. Even if pupils are intensively trained with finding the
least common denominators procedure, the percentage of correct
responses for addition and subtraction with different denomi-
nators remained low. Conceptual understanding is essential to
ensure a deep understanding of fractions. In the U.S., it is already
been recommend for the teaching of fractions (NCTM, 2000;
Fazio and Siegler, 2012), and based on our results, we would
suggest this recommendation should also apply for the French
Community of Belgium.
We argue that children might benefit from a training based
on concrete objects manipulation and explicit learning of ratio-
nal numbers characteristics. Teaching children concrete activities
could help them develop the corresponding abstract concepts
(Arnon et al., 2001; Gabriel et al., 2012). For example, most pri-
mary school children consider fractions as being entities smaller
than one (Behr et al., 1992; Stafylidou and Vosniadou, 2004).
Moreover, most of them do not seem to understand equivalent
fractions. These particular characteristics constitute the main dif-
ferences between fractions and natural numbers. Pupils might
benefit from more training with concrete objects to realize the
necessary conceptual reorganisation and understand the prop-
erties of fractions. Another interesting finding of this study is
that children performed better with familiar fractions. It could be
interesting to introduce a larger variety as well as diversified rep-
resentations of fractions in lessons. By integrating a larger range
of fractions, children might get a more flexible representation of
the magnitude of fractions.
Unfortunately, our experiment did not allow us to draw con-
clusions on how conceptual and procedural knowledge influence
each other. Correlation analysis revealed that every conceptual
and procedural items were positively correlated with each other.
October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 9
Gabriel et al. Difficulties in learning fractions

Therefore, links between conceptual and procedural understand-
ing are hard to interpret. This might mean that both types of
knowledge are not independent and could be equally impor-
tant when learning fractions. Both types of knowledge might
evolve in an iterative way. Besides, individual differences have
been reported in the development of conceptual and procedural
knowledge (Hallett et al., 2010; Hecht and Vagi, 2012). Children
differ in the use of conceptual and procedural knowledge to
solve fraction problems (Hallett et al., 2010). Another reason can
account for the difficulties to interpret findings obtained with a
hypothetical measure of conceptual and procedural knowledge.
The assessment of conceptual knowledge might reflect, to some
extent, procedural knowledge and vice versa (Rittle-Johnson and
Alibali, 1999). Future investigations are required to shed light
on the links between conceptual and procedural knowledge in
fraction learning and examine the possible reasons for individual
differences.
In conclusion, our results showed that primary school children
master the part-whole and proportion categories, but they strug-
gle to understand fractions as numbers. Equivalent and improper
fractions are very difficult to grasp, and pupils seem to apply pro-
cedures that they do not really understand. This might be linked
to teaching practice that allocates more time and exercises only
based on procedures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by a research grant from the Service
gnral du Pilotage du systme ducatif du Ministre de la
Communaut Franaise de Belgique to Alain Content, Vincent
Carette, and Bernard Rey and a grant from the Wiener-Anspach
Fund to Florence Gabriel. We thank the reviewers for their help-
ful and constructive comments. Professor Vincent Carette, who
helped initiate this research project, died suddenly in January
2011. We would like to dedicate this publication to his memory.

REFERENCES
Arnon, I., Nesher, P., and Nirenburg,
R. (2001). Where do fractions
encounter their equivalents?
Can this encounter take place in
elementary-school? Int. J. Comput.
Math. Learn. 6, 167214. doi:
10.1023/A:1017998922475
Baroody, A. J. (2003). The develop-
ment of adaptive expertise and
flexibility: the integration of con-
ceptual and procedural knowledge,
in The Development of Arithmetic
Conceptsand Skills: Constructing
Adaptive ExpertiseI, eds A. J.
Baroody and A. Dowker (Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum), 133.
Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., and
Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number,
ratio, and proportion, in Handbook
of Research on Mathematics Teaching
and Learning, ed D. A. Grouws (New
York, NY: Macmillan), 296333.
Behr, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. R.,
and Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational
numbers concepts, in Acquisition of
Mathematics Concepts and Processes,
eds R. Lesh and M. Landau (New
York, NY: Academic Press), 91125.
Bonato, M., Fabbri, S., Umilt, C.,
and Zorzi, M. (2007). The men-
tal representation of numerical
fractions: real or integer? J. Exp.
Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 33,
14101419. doi: 10.1037/0096-
1523.33.6.1410
Bright, G., Behr, M., Post, T., and
Wachsmuth, I. (1988). Identifying
fractions on number lines, J. Res.
Math. Educ. 19, 215232. doi:
10.2307/749066
Brissiaud, R. (1998). Les fractions
et les dcimaux au CM1. Une
nouvelle approche, in Actes du
XXVme Colloque des Formateurs
et Professeurs de Mathmatiques
chargs de la Formation des Matres, cognitive development and learn-
(IREM de Brest), 147171. ing: domain specificity and epige-
Brousseau, G., Brousseau, N., and nesist, in Cognitive Development,
Warfield, V. (2004). Rationals and Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th
decimals as required in the school Edn, eds D. Kuhn and R. Siegler
curriculum. Part 1: rationals as (New York, NY: Wiley), 575630.
measurements. J. Math. Behav. 23, Grgoire, J. (2008). Aux Sources des
120. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2003. Difficults de Lapprentissage des
12.001 Fractions. Brussels: Seminar given
Bryant, P. (1974). Perception and at, Universit Libre de Bruxelles.
Understanding in Young Children: Grgoire, J., and Meert, G. (2005)
An Experimental Approach, Vol. 588. Lapprentissage des nombres
London: Methuen. rationnels et ses obstacles, in Les
Byrnes, J. P., and Wasik, B. A. (1991). Troubles Du Calcul, ed M.-P. Nol
Role of conceptual knowledge in (Marseille: Solal), 223251.
mathematical procedural learning. Halford, G. S. (1993). Childrens
Dev. Psychol. 27, 777786. doi: Understanding: The Development
10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.777 of Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ:
Charalambous, C., and Pitta-Pantazi, Erlbaum.
D. (2007). Drawing on a theo- Hallett, D., Nunes, T., and Bryant,
ritical model to study students P. (2010). Individual differences
understandings of fractions. Educ. in conceptual and procedural
Stud. Math. 64, 293316. doi: knowledge when learning fractions.
10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2 J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 395406. doi:
Coquin-Viennot, D., and Camos, V. 10.1037/a0017486
(2006). Dcimaux et fractions, Hecht, S. A., and Vagi, K. J. (2012).
in La cognition mathmatique chez Patterns of strengths and weak-
lenfant, eds P. Barrouillet and V. nesses in childrens knowledge
Camos (Marseille: Solal), 145154. about fractions. J. Exp. Child
Desli, D. (1999). Childrens Psychol. 111, 212229.
Understanding of Intensive Hecht, S. A., Close, L., and Santisi, M.
Quantities. Unpublished PhD (2003). Sources of individual dif-
thesis. Institute of Education, ferences in fraction skills. J. Exp.
University of London. Child Psychol. 86, 277302. doi:
Fazio, L., and Siegler, R. (2012). 10.1016/j.jecp.2003.08.003
Teaching fractions. Educ. Pract. Ser. Hiebert, J. (ed.). (1986). Conceptual
22, 128. and Procedural Knowledge: the
Gabriel, F., Coch, F., Szucs, D., Carette, Case of Mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ:
V., Rey, B., and Content, A. (2012). Erlbaum.
Developing childrens understand- Hiebert, J., and Lefevre, P. (1986).
ing of fractions: an intervention Conceptual and procedural
study. Mind Brain Educ. 6, 137146. knowledge in mathematics:
doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012. an introductory analysis,
01149.x in Conceptualand Procedural
Gelman, R., and Williams, E. M. Knowledge: the Case of Mathematics,
(1997). Enabling constraints for ed J. Hiebert (Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates),
127.
Kallai, A., and Tzelgov, J. (2009).
A generalized fraction: an entity
smaller than one on the mental
number line. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.
Percept. Perform. 35, 18451864.
doi: 10.1037/a0016892
Kamii, C., and Clark, F. B. (1995).
Equivalent fractions: their
difficulty and educational impli-
cations. J. Math. Behav. 14,
365378. doi: 10.1016/0732-
3123(95)90035-7
Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions:
Childrens Strategies and Errors.
A Report of the Strategies and
Errors in Secondary Mathematics
Project. England: NFER-NELSON
Publishing Company, Ltd.
Kieren, T. E. (1976). On the mathe-
matical, cognitive, and instructional
foundations of rational numbers,
in Number and Measurement:
Papers from a Research Workshop,
ed R. Lesh (Columbus, OH:
ERIC/SMEAC), 101144.
Kieren, T. E. (1988) Personal knowl-
edge of rational numbers: its intu-
itive and formal development, in
Research Agenda for Mathematics
Education: Number Concepts and
Operations in the Middle Grades,
Vol. 2, eds J. Hiebert and M.
Behr (Virginia: Lawrence Erlbaum),
162181.
Kieren, T. E. (1993). Rational
and Fractional Numbers: From
Quotient fields to Recursive under-
standing, in Rational Numbers: An
Integration of Research, eds T. P.
Carpenter, E. Fennema, and T. A.
Romberg (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum),
4984.
Lesh, R., Post, T., and Behr, M.
(1988). Proportional reasoning, in

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 10

Gabriel et al.
Number Concepts and Operations in
the Middle Grades, eds J. Hiebert
and M. Behr (Reston, VA: Lawrence
Erlbaum and National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics), 93118.
Mamede, E., Nunes, T., and Bryant,
P. (2005). The equivalence and
ordering of fractions in part-whole
and quotient situations, in PME
CONFERENCE, Vol. 29, 3.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Myers, G. F.,
Lewis, K. E., Hanich, L. B., and
Murphy, M. M. (2013). Limited
knowledge of fraction representa-
tions differentiates middle school
students with mathematics learn-
ing disability (dyscalculia) vs. low
mathematics achievement. J. Exp.
Child Psychol. 115, 371387. doi:
10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005
Ministre de la Communaut franaise,
(1999). Socles de Comptences
Enseignement Fondamental et
Premier degr de lenseignement
Secondaire. Test de Mathmatique,
Rsultats et Commentaires.
Bruxelles: Administration gnrale
de lEnseignement et de la
Recherche scientifique.
Moss, J., and Case, R. (1999).
Developing childrens under-
standing of the rational numbers:
a new model and an experimental
curriculum. J. Res. Math. Educ. 30,
122147. doi: 10.2307/749607
National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics.
Reston, VA: author.
Ni, Y. (2000). How valid is it to
use number lines to measure chil-
drens conceptual knowledge about
www.frontiersin.org
rational number. Educ. Psychol. 20,
139152. doi: 10.1080/713663716
Ni, Y. (2001). Semantic domains
of rational numbers and the
acquisition of fraction equiv-
alence. Contemp. Educ. Psycol.
26, 400417. doi: 10.1006/ceps.
2000.1072
Ni, Y., and Zhou, Y. D. (2005). Teaching
and learning fraction and rational
numbers: the origins and implica-
tions of whole number bias. Educ.
Psychologist 40, 2752. doi: 10.1207/
s15326985ep4001_3
Nunes, T., and Bryant, P. (1996).
Children Doing Mathematics.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Pearn, C., and Stephens, M. (2004).
Why you have to probe to discover
what year 8 students really think
about fractions, in Paper Presented
at the Mathematics Education for
the Third Millennium: Towards 2010,
(Townsville).
Pitkethly, A., and Hunting, R. (1996).
A review of recent research in the
area of initial fraction concepts.
Educ. Stud. Math. 30, 538. doi:
10.1007/BF00163751
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., and
Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing
conceptual understanding and pro-
cedural skill in mathematics: an iter-
ative process. J. Educ. Psychol. 93,
346362. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.
93.2.346
Rittle-Johnson, B., and Alibali, M.
W. (1999). Conceptual and pro-
cedural knowledge of mathemat-
ics: does one lead to the other?
J. Educ. Psychol. 91, 175189. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175
Rouche, N. (1998). Lesprit des
Sciences. Pourquoi ont-ils Invent les
Fractions? Paris: Ellipses.
Schneider, M., and Stern, E. (2005).
Conceptual and procedural knowl-
edge of a mathematics problem:
their measurement and their causal
interrelations, in Paper Presented
at the 27th Annual Meeting of
the Cognitive Science Society (CSS),
(Stresa).
Schneider, M., and Stern, E. (2010).
The developmental relations
between conceptual and proce-
dural knowledge: a multimethod
approach. Dev. Psychol. 46, 178192.
doi: 10.1037/a0016701
Siegler, R. S., Thompson, C. A.,
and Schneider, M. (2011). An
integrated theory of whole num-
ber and fractions development.
Cogn. Psychol. 62, 273296. doi:
10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001
Singer-Freeman, K. E., and Goswami,
U. (2001). Does half a pizza equal
half a box of chocolates?: pro-
portional matching in an analogy
task. Cogn. Dev. 16, 811829. doi:
10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00066-1
Spinillo, A. G., and Bryant, P. (1991).
Childrens proportional judgments:
The importance of half . Child
Dev. 62, 427440. doi: 10.1111/j.
1467-8624.1991.tb01542.x
Stafylidou, S., and Vosniadou, S.
(2004). The development of
students understanding of the
numerical value of fractions. Learn.
Instr. 14, 503518. doi: 10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2004.06.015
Tzur, R. (1999). An integrated study of
childrens construction of improper
Difficulties in learning fractions
fractions and the teachers role in
promoting that learning. J. Res.
Math. Educ. 30, 390416. doi:
10.2307/749707
Vamvakoussi, X., and Vosniadou, S.
(2004). Understanding the structure
of the set of rational numbers: a
conceptual change approach, Learn.
Instr. 14, 453467. doi: 10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2004.06.013
Conflict of Interest Statement: The
authors declare that the research
was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships
that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.
Received: 30 April 2013; accepted: 18
September 2013; published online: 10
October 2013.
Citation: Gabriel F, Coch F, Szucs D,
Carette V, Rey B and Content A (2013) A
componential view of childrens difficul-
ties in learning fractions. Front. Psychol.
4:715. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00715
This article was submitted to
Developmental Psychology, a section
of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
Copyright 2013 Gabriel, Coch,
Szucs, Carette, Rey and Content. This is
an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the origi-
nal author(s) or licensor are credited and
that the original publication in this jour-
nal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does
not comply with these terms.
October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 11
Gabriel et al. Difficulties in learning fractions

APPENDIX

FIGURE A1 | Part-whole item: select fractions representing the same fraction as 1/4. To get
full marks, children had to select panels (A,B,D,E,G,H) and (J). In this particular example, the pupil
failed to spot fractions equivalence.

Frontiers in Psychology | Developmental Psychology October 2013 | Volume 4 | Article 715 | 12